In brownsox's impressively detailed and rigorous House races analysis yesterday, Woody commented that he wished that Obama's campaign would start focusing on building a 100-vote D majority in the House.
One of kos's posts today expands on this point, at the state legislative level, which is pivotal for the upcoming 2010 redistricting. If we want a generational majority, this is the key election, in which we can turn today's Republicans into a rump party.
I wanted to expand on my response to Woody, which focused on LBJ's tenure at the DCCC in 1940 and its effects on that year's House elections. I'll also propose some match-ups for various demographic- and issue-oriented districts.
Woody wrote:
It's time for Team Obama to pivot from worrying about the 270 EVs and go for 270 D's in the House. That would mean scheduling the big celebrities into districts where they would make that difference. But time is running out for them to go for the sweep.
Now, LBJ didn't have to worry about the national election in his role at the DCCC. However, he did use his national connections to ask for personal impressions at the district level about FDR's level of support. FDR was quite worried that he would lose, as no president had ever run for a third term, and Wendell Wilkie was exciting the Republicans, as they hadn't been since Hoover in 1928. Taking my thoughts from Caro's biography on LBJ, there are two main things he did in his informal role at the DCCC:
- Provide money at a scale never before seen at the congressional level, provided by Texas oilmen that only he had access to
- Match up individual candidates with regional or issue celebrities to do an "Authority"-style social proof to increase support (authority: if someone in a position of responsibility trusts someone else, people often transfer that trust to the third person)
Now, due to the grassroots support this year for Obama, the DSCC and the DCCC, money's not the issue this year. But let's look at the second point, what LBJ did, and see if anything makes sense for us in 2008. Note that LBJ only got his role in the DCCC on October 14th, three weeks before the election. Now, times have changed since then, and campaigns are much more drawn out than they were back in 1940. On the other hand, many people are just tuning in to non-Presidential races. This could still have a major effect.
LBJ had a few big names he turned to in 1940, based on issues: Sen. George Norris, champion of public hydroelectric power, who helped bring electricity to rural areas around the country; Sen. Claude Pepper, as a symbol of the New Deal's support for labor. He had others for demographically-narrow districts: Rep. Rudolph Tenerowicz, for districts with large numbers of Polish voters; Rep. Arthur Mitchell, renowed orator, for districts with large numbers of African Americans; Frank Serri, an "Italian Brooklyn lawyer and fine orator," for Italian districts; and Fiorello La Guardia, for districts of "varied ethnic composition." Primarily, these were New Deal figures (or fighters for New Deal causes in the decades before the New Deal) and ethnic leaders. The result of LBJ's exertions was to turn a feared 20-seat minimal lose into an 8-seat gain. He had been in Congress less than three years when he did this.
To extend this to today's circumstances, let's look at the national figures currently in Congress: Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Durbin, and Clyburn. These are the Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, House Majority Leader, Senate Majority Whip, and House Majority Whip.
Hoyer would be most useful in Blue Dog districts, Clyburn in majority African-American districts or districts with significant numbers of African-Americans. Durbin could be a useful Obama stand-in, as another Senate leader from Illinois, and I'm actually surprised we haven't seen him at all this campaign. Pelosi and Reid could probably be most useful in fundraisers, as they're polarizing figures thanks to the Right, and they're likely doing that already.
So I'm not familiar with the demographics and issues of most districts, but, I'll throw some names out based on what I am familiar with:
- Rep. and Dr. Rush Holt would be useful for districts with big science communities, such as CA-26, with JPL, or MA-08, with MIT, etc...
- Sen. Kent Conrad for agricultural districts, potentially to help Scott Kleeb and Jim Slattery in their races, and probably House and State Legislative races, as well.
- Sen. Rockefeller, with labor leaders, for any district that produces "1,000,000 tons of coal or more," aka Appalachia, something taken directly from LBJ
- T. Boone Pickens and former Vice President Gore, for districts where alternative energy could be big, with the proper investment and incentives. We need to reclaim this issue from the Republicans with solutions and the promise of 'green jobs' to fuel the economy.
- Former Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries: In this case, it's been at least eight years since these people have held these positions. In 1940, there were more resources to bring to bear with an incumbent president helping out. I don't think this is a useful road, but I'm throwing it out there, since a former Secretary might still be a useful 'celebrity' in his or her home district.
And so on. I don't know your districts as well as you do, but certainly the Clintons, Obama, and Biden are not the only people that can make a big splash. They're just the ones that can make a big splash anywhere. Each district has its own flavor and will be responsive to a unique message. We're the Big Tent party now, and I'm confident that we can find speakers who would resonate in each district, if the effort was put in to find them and match them up with competitive candidates to give us the edge. I'm confident that not only is the national atmosphere again with us this year, but that we can, with properly targeted efforts, take more than a few "Lean Republican" seats.
Now, I don't have to convince you that a 270 seat Dem majority is valuable. But think about this one extra bit that could help motivate you to get out and volunteer for local candidates. With a large enough Democratic majority, Republicans can be re-taught that if they want to accomplish anything, they need to work within our progressive framework, as GOP House Minority Leader Bob Michel told Gingrich early on in his tenure that he had to go-along to get-along. We complain when Democrats use right-wing framing on an issue; why not give them a decade of the reverse? Gingrich exploded this way-of-life in the early 90s, but what better revenge for 1994 than if by 2012, we reestablish a submissive Republican minority beyond his ability to undo. What better than to show Gingrich that everything he did over nearly 20 years is now destroyed and discredited? Makes me smile to think about...
PS - This is my first Diary, so if I'm missing anything or if you have any suggestions, please let me know.